[Please take this off-list - we can post a result of any discussions later
here, but this is not a professional medicine list.]
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 04:45:40PM +0100, Gabriel Kerneis
<kern...@pps.jussieu.fr> wrote:
> You are definitely making stuff "out of the blue" in that case, because the
> behaviour you mention ("doing one thing and then claiming something
> different")
> is not a symptom of schizophrenia.
No, but inability to concentrate, inability or difficulties to follow up
on thoughts, delusions, difficulties remembering what one did (and not
did) are (among others that might or might not match in this case).
Note that nowhere did I make the claim you put in quotes above, it is your
your own argument that you attack here. It's a strawmen you are burning
down.
> Note that even if it did, it would still be an "unfounded statement",
> since you keep repeating that "such behaviour borders on the
> schizophrenic" without substantiating your claim in any way.
Unfounded means without foundation. I can and have clearly stated the
foundations for what I claimed.
So what are the foundations for your claim that what I said is obviously
wrong? Because at the very least it isn't obvious if you have to rely on
the icd, use some slippery linguistic reasoning and make up claims that
you attack instead of attacking what I actually said.
It seems your statement was indeed just that - unfounded.
> homework and RTFM (which would be the ICD, section F20, in this specific
> case).
I think the ICD agrees with me (I just had a look, feel free to point out
where it disagrees), although it was not the source of my claim, which
might be a bit outdated (long time ago...) and is in german, but I don't
think there is an essential difference.
> Unless when you say "borders on" what you actually mean is "in public
> perception, schizophrenia is often confused with dissociative identity
> disorder". Then I couldn't agree more, but this would only confirm the fact
> that, sadly, your are spreading this misconception.
What you are now saying is that professional jargon doesn't always agree
with normal language. That's not really news, is it?
Why do you think I used (or have to use, or have to be ccountable for) the
vernacular of a small group that has no relevance to this mailing list,
or the problems we discuss here? Last I looked this is not a medicinal
journal or mailinglist.
Wouldn't you say it is arrogant to force others to use a special
vernacular that has no relevance to the topic discussed, as opposed to
commno language? Do you also attack people when they wrongly use your
chosen terminology elsewhere?
What you are doing is like attacking others when they talk about white
water vapour coming out of a steam engine on a train-lovers mailinglist,
for it's "obvious" that water vapour has no colour - it is transparent.
Not that my use is apparently wrong, by your own standards - but it seems
the only one who spreads misconceptions in this thread is you.
I can understand if you maybe have a personal issue with potential wrong
uses of the word (maybe you have a relative with such symtpoms, it's not
rare, or you had contact with such people as part of your professional
career - I didn't, I only studied medicine for a while), and this is the
reason why you overreact so much. But you are way too critical, and making
claims about what I said that are simply not true, while attacking things
I haven't said.
Your arguments are not based on reality, Gabriel.
--
The choice of a Deliantra, the free code+content MORPG
-----==- _GNU_ http://www.deliantra.net
----==-- _ generation
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / schm...@schmorp.de
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\
_______________________________________________
libev mailing list
libev@lists.schmorp.de
http://lists.schmorp.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libev
